California’s Jerry Brown Has Laid Down a Direct Challenge to Trump

In a pugnacious State of the State speech, the governor’s contempt for the new president was evident.

January 24, 2017

California Governor Jerry Brown delivers his annual State of the State address to a joint session of the California Legislature, January 24, 2017, in Sacramento, California. (AP Photo / Rich Pedroncelli)

Want to Fight Back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

At 10 o’clock this morning, in the beautiful Assembly Chamber of the California legislature in Sacramento, Governor Jerry Brown quickly swore in the state’s new attorney general, Xavier Becerra.

A few weeks earlier, Brown had nominated the Los Angeles congressman because he believed that Becerra would fight Donald Trump’s agenda tooth and nail in the courts. The legislature held several confirmation hearings over the past few weeks in which it laid down a series of gauntlets to the incoming Trump administration. Becerra, time and again, expressed his willingness to sue the Feds to protect the well-being of Californians.

Now after the swearing in, in front of a packed chamber, the 78-year-old Brown laid out California’s challenges and opportunities in the Trump era. It was, he said in his half-hour speech, a critical moment, a period in history marked by “great uncertainty.”

For months, commentators have pointed to California’s outlier role as an increasingly liberal state in a country veering in a dangerously conservative direction. But while both the Senate and the Assembly leaders in this state have been outspoken in their criticism of Trump’s agenda, until now (with the exception of climate change), Governor Brown has been remarkably circumspect. In his statements outlining the upcoming budget last week, he talked of deficits and of the need to build rainy-day funds, and generally avoided big-picture questions such as what the state is planning to do in the event of the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act or other attacks on social infrastructure programs.

There’s been a Yoda-like quality to Brown these days. The governor has been speaking almost in aphorisms, making short, philosophical statements about our interconnectedness, our relationship to the planet, the dangers of hubris, and so on.

California, Brown averred, is “the Great Exception,” willing to carve its own path on a host of fundamental issues.

By contrast, in today’s State of the State speech, Brown went into specifics and on the offensive, his fury and contempt for Trumpism impossible to disguise. In a pugnacious, campaigning speech, his voice loud, his hands hammering the air for emphasis, the governor laid out a much more ambitious idea of what his state means and how California can act in the current political moment. California, he averred, is “the Great Exception,” a state economically intertwined with the rest of the United States but willing to carve its own path on a host of fundamental issues.

In many ways, Brown was laying down a challenge: that the California Dream would come to fill the emotional space in this century that in the 20th century was the purview of the American Dream.

“We will defend everybody…who had come here for a better life and had contributed to the well-being of our state.”

On immigration he committed the state to protecting its undocumented populations. “Let me be clear: we will defend everybody—every man, woman, and child—who had come here for a better life and had contributed to the well-being of our state.” The audience responded with a long standing ovation.

On climate change he argued, “whatever they do in Washington, they cannot change the facts…the science is clear.” He went on to slam the new administration for trying to “construct some alternate universe of non-facts that we find more pleasing.”

“California is not turning back. Not now, not ever.”

On ideas such as universal healthcare and equal treatment for all, Brown laid down an extraordinary challenge to the federal government. “I intend to join with other governors—and with you—to do everything we can to protect the healthcare of our people.” Departing from his prepared speech, Brown gave a strong defense of Planned Parenthood.

Ready to Fight Back? Sign Up For Take Action Now

Finally, after quoting Woody Guthrie’s song “This Land Is Your Land,” Brown ended with a promise: “California is not turning back. Not now, not ever.”

If the Trump administration truly does slide not only toward extreme conservatism—rolling back most of the progressive political achievements of the past century—but, ultimately, into irrational rule, Brown’s speech showed that there were still some grownups in the American political room.

It was a speech notable not for cheap hyperbole but for its sense of determination. While some of California’s legislative leaders have in recent weeks spoken in panicked tones, Brown’s approach was simply one of getting a necessary job done.

On the same day that Trump announced the Keystone XL pipeline project would be started again, Brown delivered an alternative view of humanity’s relationship to the environment. “We cannot fall back and give in to the climate deniers. The science is clear. The danger is real.”

Brown’s call for other progressive states and governors to rally around this alternative vision, and his pledge to protect the interests of California’s people and environment in this new era, was a clear shot across the federal bow. Make no mistake, California will be at the forefront of resistance to all things Trump.

Sasha AbramskySasha Abramsky, who writes regularly for The Nation, is the author of several books, including InsideObama’s Brain, Breadline USA,American Furies, The American Way of Poverty: How the Other Half Still Lives, and The House of 20,000 Books. His Jumping at Shadows: The Triumph of Fear and the End of the American Dream will be published by Nation Books in September.

Time to start overturning the CA term limits law. We're going to need someone like Jerry Brown in California. He has always been a visionary ahead of his time.

(6)(2)

Sheilah Renauddsays:

January 26, 2017 at 12:09 pm

Thank you Jerry!

(8)(3)

Walter Pewensays:

January 25, 2017 at 4:38 pm

Exactly. Excuse me, but fuck Chuck Schumer and ALL the static Democrats who seem to be huddling on the East Coast at this time. I am a native to the state, spent my life here. At 58 years old I am NOT going back in time again. Reagan was enough. Come along if you want, we are NOT recognizing any of this crap. We've led before and looks like we will have to again. It takes getting out of fear mode, something that's actually a bit regional in the long run.

(40)(7)

Aaron Sobelsays:

January 25, 2017 at 1:48 pm

Well done and said Governor. Let California be the shining light and guiding light. And maybe your Senate and House delegation can start stripping some of that power" from Schumer, who is rapidly turning into a faux Democratic leader. (Did you notice on the photo ops shown on TV with him and the other GOP and Democrat Senators and Representative, when meeting with Trump, only Schumer was laughing at something Trump was saying. It must have been uproarious to that phony Schumer, since no one else seemed to be laughing, except maybe Ryan, who had a little closed mouth grin, working)? Go get 'em, Gov.

(33)(6)

Patricia Foxsays:

January 25, 2017 at 12:10 pm

In reply to Gould Hagler:
Climate change:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full
Anderegg et. Al. Expert credibility in climate change, Procedings of the National Academy of Science, 4/2010
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

www.researchgate.net/publication/266450066_Anthropogenic_Climate_Change_Expert_Credibility_and_the_Scientific_Consensus
Anthropogenic Climate Change: Expert Credibility and the Scientific Consensus
Murray Goot, Macquarie University, May, 2012
Examines arguments for and against Anthropomorphic Climate Change (ACC) and his conclusion is "Conclusion
Most of those working on climate science accept the proposition that anthropogenic climate
change explains a large part of the recent rise in global temperatures. Surveys of the literature
show this. So, too, do surveys of climate scientists whether broadly or narrowly defined. That
different kinds of evidence point in the same direction suggests that the conclusion is robust.
Even many of the sceptics accept that most scientific opinion is presently against them."

(18)(0)

Gould Haglersays:

January 24, 2017 at 7:23 pm

﻿ “We cannot fall back and give in to the climate deniers. The science is clear. The danger is real.”

I am aware of no one who denies climate. It is hard to take seriously a person who uses words with such little regard.

More substantively, what is it, exactly, and in detail, what the science is clear about? Climate change is a very complex subject. The phenomenon presents not one question, not ten questions, but hundreds. Is science clear and settled on all these questions? Do the proverbial 97% of scientists who agree really agree on all these complex issues?

(11)(109)

James Clarksays:

January 25, 2017 at 12:49 pm

Donald Trump tweeted on Nov 6. 2012, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." James Inhofe throw a snowball on the Senate floor on February 26, 2015 as proof that climate change doesn't exist. If you are really aware of no one who denies climate change, you really haven't made much of an effort to look around to hear what leading Republicans claim in direct contradiction to science. Check out Mother Jones and their 'Running List of Climate Change Deniers Joining the Trump Administration' for a more complete rundown of those in government who do not believe in climate change or waffle on any causes and solutions.

As for the science, it is clear that carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are heat trapping gasses. These are by products of fossil fuel extraction and use. So humans continue to increasingly impact our planet by continuing to use fossil fuels. The science is crystal clear and the link to humans' impact very logical. Yes there are other natural sources of these gasses but the increases of them in our atmosphere over the past 150 years directly relates to our increased fossil fuel usage over that same time frame. It is a losing debate to suggest otherwise.

Climate deniers want to sow uncertainty and doubt so their own fossil fuel investments prosper or the political donations received from those very same companies continue. This is morally wrong and will have increasingly severe consequences in the future as drought, human displacement, and widespread global war result. 40% of people live near the coast so increasing sea levels will submerge cities and large areas (i.e. Florida), impact naval ports and bases, and result in massive pollution of our oceans from what is left behind for the waves to reclaim and disperse.

What is complex is the dark money and secrecy funding climate deniers. The need to switch to alternative energy and stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is a belief universally shared by scientists. There are many questions regarding the best mix of renewable energy we could and should be using and how fast we can get these energy sources online. Those are worthy questions worth our time and examination. The questions climate deniers want to dwell on are centered on stopping progress on the above questions so fossil fuels continue to be the primary energy sources. Those are the wrong questions and I agree with Gov. Brown in addressing the real dangers for the sake of our collective children and future generations.

(66)(1)

Walter Pewensays:

January 26, 2017 at 9:17 pm

Inhofe is another one along with McConnell: Rot in Hell, Bud. Send somebody else's kids into your future nightmare based on your own immaturity and greed. And I mean it.

(3)(0)

Gould Haglersays:

January 25, 2017 at 6:16 am

I note with some interest that 15 readers of The Nation give this comment a thumbs down, but not one person posts a reply. This is quite common, I have seen. A quick negative grunt but no effort to address any issue or answer any question.

(12)(51)

Walter Pewensays:

January 27, 2017 at 3:46 pm

I took a class on it exactly 30 years ago at Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Back then, the oceanography community was showing numbers and letting people see the numbers. What you are doing, Gould is holding out for more obfuscations. No more time. It is official now and you are full of it.....

(3)(0)

Laura Jonessays:

January 25, 2017 at 11:57 am

Perhaps people lack the patience necessary to respond to your (ridiculous) post. Go read up on the scientific method if you're still uncertain why 97% of scientists with consistent results means there is consensus on Climate Change.

(64)(0)

Maria Ayubsays:

January 25, 2017 at 10:11 am

Gould, do you really want to wait for all the data to be in? We have been with this issue for decades now and we know it is happening!!
Scientists can only estimate, and that is good enough to convince me.

(54)(2)

Marjorie Wherleysays:

January 25, 2017 at 12:44 pm

New cries for more data, further study, etc. are typical from those who want to preserve the status quo, especially when it suits their pocketbooks. Big Tobacco used that argument for many years. It's now the tactic of choice for the fossil fuel industry and their minions in DC. Not to say Mr. Hacker is a minion (unless the shoe fits...)